Hillary vs Bernie

[Valmy]

The same kind of non-committal rhetorics coming from Trump is enough of an evidence he is a fascist so I am not sure why it is a different standard for Hillary. Is it because she is a woman and women usually do not think through their stances? 

I have been laughing at the people who think Trump is going to become a fascist dictator so why are you asking me to account for them?

[Josquius]

\
Even as much as sanders would have been good for America (for the world though I'm unsure. All this talk of bringing jobs back to America..... fine when a small country says that sort of thing but when it's the country controlling so much of the global economy?)

You sure you haven't turned into a gnome of Zurich, your Swiss neoliberalism is shining through.  And I *never* make fun of you for this, but what's good for the British coal-mine goose isn't good for the American steel-mill gander?

And yes, business as usual really is that bad, just not for you or me because we're extraordinarily lucky.

I specifically said he seemed good for America.

[Grinning_Colossus]

The garish, colossal architecture will be a sight to behold. Mussolini eat your heart out.

[Capetan Mihali]

But I doubt he'll stop until the bitter end...and then the Convention will be interesting to see.  As well as how many voters (like me) who would've voted for Sanders but will either submit a write-in ballot or not vote at all in November.

This is the part I don't really get from your part of the left (the one that is pro-Sanders and vehemently anti-Trump). Sure, I have no problem with you preferring Sanders over Clinton. But if Trump is the evil incarnate and a racist fascist you claim him to be, surely one should hold their nose and vote for Clinton, right? That is the only moral stance to take - potentially contributing to a fascist victory because the counter-candidate is not ideologically pure enough is deeply unethical.

  Marty calls me "vehemently anti-Trump," Raz says I defend Trump even when he calls for violence; which is it?

Raz at least has some discussion to back up his opinion.  (Discussion that was misinterpreted, but at least based on some kind of statement of mine.)  Yours is pulled out of thin air.

I'd go through the Languish routine of demanding you find a post where I say Trump is evil incarnate or claim he's as a racist fascist, but it's silly since there's evidently nothing like that to be found.  This may come as a surprise, but I don't think either is true.  (And my views on Trump aren't "mostly" trolling, unlike some of us.)

Guess I'm not a member of "[my] part of the left" after all.   Just caught in that "part of the left" that you're currently having psychosexual reactionary fantasies about.  Go back to the Zizek, Mart, it'll do you some good to dig into psychoanalysis.

[Capetan Mihali]

I specifically said he seemed good for America.

And unsure if his stance of promoting domestic industries would be good for the world.  Hence the analogy to the situation of British coal industry in the 70s-80s: protecting the mines was good for Britain but it wasn't clear that it was good for the world, especially the other coal-producing parts of the world...

[Razgovory]

I said she favored it.  Her words were that the Australian system was "worth looking at".  In politician speak, that means she favors it.

In political speak it means "I'm not actually going to do anything".

Not really, that is an underlying truth that does not depend upon the language used, as it is rarely explicitly stated.

Nah.  It's like when the British say that something is a "brave proposal". They mean you are crazy, not brave.  Same thing with "we are looking into it" or "it's worth looking into"  It means "we aren't taking this seriously, maybe we'll have a panel or some other busywork"

[Razgovory]

This is also why I'm so upset that we're continuing to have the Bern drift along. He's already pushed Hillary to the left, now time to bow out as the next few months will only continue strife and lead to more Bern supporters adopting Mihali's juvenile* stance.

*and really it is as not voting/protesting voting in the two party system we have only serves to help the Republicans who are certainly much farther away policy-wise than Hillary is to Bernie.

You would have thought people learned their fucking lesson in 2000.  Not voting out of principle is a shitty fucking principle.

Quite frankly, and I don't care how melodramatic people think it sounds, but far too many Americans have died and far more people on this planet die every day over the right to vote.  I don't care if it's a vote for dog catcher or chancery judge, or even if it's as trivial a matter as making sure your vote cancels out Yi's, fucking vote.

Christ, yes.

[Capetan Mihali]

Nah.  It's like when the British say that something is a "brave proposal". They mean you are crazy, not brave.  Same thing with "we are looking into it" or "it's worth looking into"  It means "we aren't taking this seriously, maybe we'll have a panel or some other busywork"

"Tired and emotional."  Like me.

[garbon]

  So juvenile to think that just because I've voted for 95% (D) candidates in the past, a Presidential candidate -- even from the Democratic Party! -- has to earn my vote rather than just expect it?  What's juvenile is refusing to believe we can ever have anything better than "the better of two evils" and smearing anyone who is foolish enough to vote their conscience, like a mere child shaking his rattle.

In the race that we are discussing? Yes, an unqualified yes. Leaving the presidency open for Republicans isn't going to help matters and instead will do a lot to push more anti-leftist agendas. Clinton might not push as far left as you'd like but it is a hell of a lot more left than you'll get from any Republican candidate.  Maybe juvenile was a bit harsh but it does seem to reflect a lack of critical thinking about the reality of politics in America.

Of course we can never have perfect candidates; but at a certain point the things that make the candidates "evil" are pretty specific and pretty obvious, e.g. campaign contributions from the finance sector, not vague or petty distastes like "not sure we see eye-to-eye on the environment..." or "wears suits a size too big."

I think that is a very odd definition of evil. I don't think, in a capitalist society, I would consider someone evil because they get campaign contributions from the financial sector.

[derspiess]

You guys lay off Mihali.  If he decides not to vote next November, respect his decision.  Not voting is a bold political statement in itself.

[Valmy]

You guys lay off Mihali.  If he decides not to vote next November, respect his decision.  Not voting is a bold political statement in itself.

[Eddie Teach]

You guys lay off Mihali.  If he decides not to vote next November, respect his decision.  Not voting is a bold political statement in itself.

[Razgovory]

  So juvenile to think that just because I've voted for 95% (D) candidates in the past, a Presidential candidate -- even from the Democratic Party! -- has to earn my vote rather than just expect it?  What's juvenile is refusing to believe we can ever have anything better than "the better of two evils" and smearing anyone who is foolish enough to vote their conscience, like a mere child shaking his rattle.

In the race that we are discussing? Yes, an unqualified yes. Leaving the presidency open for Republicans isn't going to help matters and instead will do a lot to push more anti-leftist agendas. Clinton might not push as far left as you'd like but it is a hell of a lot more left than you'll get from any Republican candidate.  Maybe juvenile was a bit harsh but it does seem to reflect a lack of critical thinking about the reality of politics in America.

Of course we can never have perfect candidates; but at a certain point the things that make the candidates "evil" are pretty specific and pretty obvious, e.g. campaign contributions from the finance sector, not vague or petty distastes like "not sure we see eye-to-eye on the environment..." or "wears suits a size too big."

I think that is a very odd definition of evil. I don't think, in a capitalist society, I would consider someone evil because they get campaign contributions from the financial sector.

This class warfare and "we must fight Goldman-Sachs!", isn't really very helpful.

[Capetan Mihali]

"Evil" was in quotes to represent its connection to the phrase "the better of two evils," which doesn't really mean two actually evil things are being compared, like "better the devil you know."

Why should I vote for a candidate I don't want to be President?  Why is it my responsibility to use my vote to help the Democratic Party candidate win when they don't put forward a candidate I support? 

This kind of "well if you don't like you can lump it, pick the least shittiest for 'our side' or GTFO" thinking seems much less in line with the duties of disposing of my sacred ballot, for which so much blood was shed, as CdM noted.

And we're not on the same side politically, a fundamental point that's much broader than just the two of us, and one that's been building and building for various reasons.  My political priorities are entirely different than yours, even though we share certain policy preferences, and the Democratic Party is just not a big enough tent for me with Hillary Clinton as the candidate.

[DGuller]

  So juvenile to think that just because I've voted for 95% (D) candidates in the past, a Presidential candidate -- even from the Democratic Party! -- has to earn my vote rather than just expect it?  What's juvenile is refusing to believe we can ever have anything better than "the better of two evils" and smearing anyone who is foolish enough to vote their conscience, like a mere child shaking his rattle.

In the race that we are discussing? Yes, an unqualified yes. Leaving the presidency open for Republicans isn't going to help matters and instead will do a lot to push more anti-leftist agendas. Clinton might not push as far left as you'd like but it is a hell of a lot more left than you'll get from any Republican candidate.  Maybe juvenile was a bit harsh but it does seem to reflect a lack of critical thinking about the reality of politics in America.

As I said in the other thread, one of the big problems lefties have is prioritizing their own moral comfort over the welfare of the system as a whole.  Have to call Trump "Mr. President"?  Well, at least I didn't violate my principles, I can feel good about myself, Hillary had to earn my vote.